Philosophy and Science of Risk is a new book written by Isabelle Peschard, Yann Benétreau-Dupin, and Christopher Wessels. Combining insights from a variety of disciplines, it explores a range of topics related to the concept of risk, including its social construction, its management, and the ethics surrounding it. In this Recently Published Book Spotlight, the authors discuss the importance of thinking about risk, what else they would have liked to include in the book, and the experience of writing collaboratively.
Our book aims at giving an overall view of the landscape of some of the main issues related to risk that are being debated by philosophers and social scientists: what kind of thing risk is, what models can be used to rationalize our decision-making about risk, what factors influence our perception of risk, what is involved in studying risk scientifically, and what kinds of framework are used for risk management. Our goal was to cover those questions about risk in a way that could be used as an introduction to the discipline for students or the public. But our approach to those different issues is also guided by a specific concern, namely, the confusion around questions about objectivity versus subjectivity in connection with risk: questions like “Is risk subjective or objective?,” “Is risk perception subjective or is there something objective to it?,” “Can the science of risk be objective?” and so on. Our approach to the main issues referred to above is always directed at this tension between what is objective and what is subjective in our dealings with risks. What we show is that whenever we are dealing with risk, like conceptualizing risk, perceiving risk, assessing risk, managing risk, there is a subjective dimension to this dealing; but what is meant by “subjective” or “objective” is not always the same thing.
What topics do you discuss in the work, and why do you discuss them?
Our book provides an interdisciplinary overview of the subject of risk. It is divided into five chapters, each focusing on a different aspect of risk. The first chapter focuses on the ontology of risk; in it, we ask “What is Risk?” and discover that the concept has three core dimensions and includes both descriptive and evaluative components. The second chapter focuses on rationality by examining proposals for an ideal framework that rational agents could use to make personal decisions about risks. The third chapter explores the epistemology of risk, examining the relationship between the normative aspects of our experience of risk and the scientific assessment of risk, and highlighting the various values, both epistemic and non-epistemic, that are employed in those assessments. The fourth chapter delves into psychology by relating empirical data regarding the private, cultural, and moral determinants of individuals’ perceptions of risk; we also ask what it might mean for these perceptions to be “subjective” and consider whether that subjectivity might lead to inaccurate judgments. The final chapter addresses ethical considerations regarding the management of risks affecting society; it critically examines the ability of governing agencies and scientific communicators to address the needs and concerns of different groups and to prioritize those who are most vulnerable to societal risks.
The approach we take to these issues (in particular, the focus on clarifying the nature and function of the subjective and objective dimensions of our dealings with risk), the examples we choose, what we emphasize, and the way we discuss things, all reflect our individual interests and expertise. For instance, Chris’ love for extreme sports shows clearly in Chapter 1 and some previous studies of his on Joshua Knobe’s work in experimental philosophy were the inspiration to use this work to interpret the role of moral value in risk perception. Yann’s interest in probabilities and expected utility theory contributed to Chapter 2 and his familiarity, as a journal editor, with publications on fatal encounters with the police was a motivation to use this research as a case study in our Risk Assessment chapter. And Isabelle’s extensive experience with scientific modeling and interest in values in science is evident throughout the book and informs much of its content and presentation. Our main goal, and biggest challenge as well, was to provide a comprehensive overview of the various issues related to risk while also ensuring that the narrative was cohesive. Such an offering was lacking in the existing literature.
Is there anything you didn’t include that you wanted to? Why did you leave it out?
IP: Something I would have liked to include, if my ideas on this kind of issue had been more developed, is a discussion of moral risk.
When we deliberate about what to do, we are considering not only the physical, material, emotional implications for ourselves, but often also the moral ones. In the same way as there are some physical or emotional consequences that we seek to avoid or minimize when deciding what to do, there are some moral consequences that we seek to avoid or minimize. We generally seek to preserve or increase our well-being, and one dimension of our well-being is moral. We will often refrain from doing something because someone else, that we may not even know, may be harmed, because it would not feel right, that is, because it would entail a loss of moral well-being. Our moral well-being is valuable enough that we regularly dismiss opportunities to increase our physical or emotional well-being to preserve our moral well-being, to avoid the possibility of a moral failure.
In the context of business management, “ethical risk” refers to the possibility of unethical practices, practices that we know to be unethical, like harassment, discrimination or conflict of interest. There is “risk” because there is only “possibility” that the unethical practice occurs and to reduce the risk is to reduce the chance that the practice will occur. But there is another kind of risk that has to do with moral evaluation and that seems a bit more difficult to grasp: it arises when our moral knowledge is challenged, when we are not sure whether what we are doing or its consequences is morally acceptable. This kind of risk is generally referred to as moral risk.
For example, it could be argued that there is some uncertainty as to what our moral duties towards future generations are and, if this is the case, then there is some uncertainty as to whether some practices affecting the conditions of life of future generations are morally acceptable.
The same could be said about our moral obligations towards other animals. If there is some uncertainty as to our moral obligations, then there is some uncertainty as to whether some practices using other animals are morally acceptable. If that’s the case, to engage in those practices constitutes a moral risk. The notion of moral risk is more difficult to work through than the conception of ethical risk because it requires us to clarify what it is to have moral knowledge and what to do when we face moral uncertainty.
____________
CW: My uncle told me about a scene from an early episode of the original Star Trek series, “The Galileo Seven,” where Spock takes a “risky” action in order to save the crew of a shuttle he is operating. The action involves the seemingly rash decision to release and ignite all the fuel from the shuttle’s engines in an attempt to signal the distant Enterprise. Kirk and others come to interpret this act as an expression of Spock’s humanity against his logical Vulcan judgment. I had long wished to write something about this scene because it embodies the tension between reason and emotion that shapes our understanding of risk and invites many of the philosophically-interesting questions surrounding this concept that we explore in the book—like whether a risk can represent a purely rational choice of action, or whether individual psychologies and emotions can lead to wrong perceptions or applications. What this scene tells me is that we do not always regard a “risk” as an action resulting from cold, rational calculations; instead, we may think of it as a decision wrought by forces like passion or intuition. What’s more, a decision of the latter sort will not always lead to bad outcomes (Spock and his crew were saved by his actions), and may reflect positively on our humanity as opposed to negatively on our ability to make good choices. Chapter 1 of our book seemed an obvious place to insert this example and explore these possibilities, but unfortunately, I was unable to work out exactly where to place them or how best to align them with our overall aims.
At the beginning of our unit on cost-benefit analysis (Chapter 5), we suggest that the method mirrors the informal deliberative process that individuals use to decide whether an action is “worth the risk.” Initially, I had wanted to write more about this connection, in effort to make what follows in the chapter feel more familiar and relevant to readers. Thinking in terms of trade-offs when faced with a risky choice is such a natural and inescapable feature of our psychologies, even if the process is largely unconscious, and highlighting its similarities with cost-benefit analysis could put readers in the right frame to appreciate both the mechanism and appeal of the method. However, eventually I decided it was unnecessary to expand on this connection beyond the few lines I dedicated to it, because the focus of the section (and much of the chapter) needed to be on the method itself.
____________
YBD: There is a lot of teaching material that we couldn’t include. At least, that’s the case for me. We taught versions of a course on the philosophy of risk that mostly revolved around climate change and agriculture: talking about uncertainty, harm, and risk management in terms of public health, climate change, pollution, animal welfare, land management, dietary choices, or revenue makes much of the abstract content discussed in the book personal and relatable in a classroom. We couldn’t have a whole chapter on this, nor take everything else out.
There are things I wish we had included, but this wasn’t always a conscious choice: we didn’t discuss much of the history of psychology that reduced policy discussions about risk assessment and management to risks driven by individual choices, if not reduced to “accidents”, because I read about it too late. We didn’t discuss Alex London’s work on the role of the moral dimension of risk assessment in research, because his book came out as we were almost done writing.
As for more conscious decisions about what we left out, I don’t think of it that way: it was a collective book, and we defined what we wanted to include progressively and deliberatively, and so we included what we wanted to, and vice versa.
How is your work relevant to the contemporary world?
IP: I am interested in how we think and deal with risk at the societal level because I have come to see political programs as the selection of a few societal risks that are brought to the fore as the important ones, together with some ways of managing those selected risks that are presented as the most appropriate ones. Different platforms are distinguished through which risks are selected or dismissed and what form of management is elected or disparaged. For instance: climate warming, lack of healthcare, addiction, economic downturn, national debt, wealth gap, homelessness, and so on. Risks are objects of scientific study, be it in physical or social sciences, and that makes them look like facts. What our work shows is that dealing with risks is not dealing with facts. Take climate warming: just as a fact, it is not a risk. To see it as a risk is to attach to it and its possible consequences some negative value, to see it as something we don’t or should not want to happen. And in our book, we show that also the way we decide to manage risks and even the scientific assessment of risks are, necessarily, influenced by some choices influenced by values, preferences, purposes, all of which are rarely made explicit. I think it is important for the ways in which our societies develop, especially in a democracy where everyone is involved in governance, that people be aware of how values, preferences, and purposes influence our judgments about risks and their management.
______________
CW: We explore the various ways in which individuals, institutions, and societies perceive and manage risk—a topic that has become increasingly important in today’s uncertain and fast moving world. From pandemics to economic crises, from cyber threats to civic unrest, understanding and mitigating risk is important for ensuring the well-being of individuals and nations.
As its title suggests, our book examines the interplay between philosophy and science in the study of risk, stressing the importance of both critical thinking and technical knowledge in appraisal and decision-making. This balance of skills is especially relevant in today’s world, where data-driven approaches and technological advancements give rise to novel ethical considerations. Our analysis of the importance and challenges of communication between experts and lay (in the late stages of the book) speaks to the misinformation and mistrust that is all too rampant these days. We are optimistic that a deeper understanding of the philosophy and science of risk could help people engage in more productive dialogue with each other, and maybe even make better decisions.
Finally, risk management, which we cover in Chapter Five, is an essential topic in today’s society where public actors are called to address complex risks in an increasingly globalized and interconnected world.
What effect do you hope your work will have?
IP: One motivation to write the book was the lack of instructional material for philosophy of risk at the undergraduate level. So, at the academic level, I hope it will help and encourage instructors to teach philosophy of risk at the undergraduate level or to include philosophy of risk, in a more systematic way than done currently, to the teaching of philosophy of science or science studies. At a more general level, I hope it will make people more aware of the diverse and profound ways in which our values influence our dealings with risk, not just at the individual level but also at the societal level. By “dealings with risk” I mean the four types of engagement with risk that are addressed in the different chapters of the book: our individual and societal perceptions of what count as risk or how severe a risk it is, the rational models we use to guide our decision making around risk, our scientific assessments of risks and finally the ways in which we manage risks.
______________
CW: I believe that our interdisciplinary approach to the content will make the book a valuable resource to students across numerous disciplines, such as philosophy, psychology, economics, and statistics. I hope the material proves interesting to students in these and other related fields, and succeeds in helping them develop a critical and nuanced understanding of the concept of risk and its relevance to decision-making in both the public and private spheres. Perhaps students will even feel encouraged to apply what they have learned to make good decisions in the face of uncertainty.
The book might have some positive effects on the academic world as well.
First of all, it could contribute to advancements in the philosophy of risk, which is still a relatively new field of study and, more generally, inspire further study and research on the topic of risk, and even help improve communication and collaboration between disciplines related to risk.
____________
YBD: The only way to know is to wait for the next pandemic or global threat and see how much wiser the public discourse around risk will be.
Or more realistically, it will perhaps make a few teachers’ and students’ task of getting introduced to this rich family of topics and its vast related literature a little easier.
What writing practices, methods, or routines do you use, and which have been the most helpful?
YBD: Such a collective project meant that we had two different sets of practices: one for writing and another one for collaborating. We each had different writing habits: for instance, I spend quite some time thinking about and discussing a chapter or section’s outline, its overall arch, and I think of the details much later. It makes it challenging for my co-authors to weigh in before a full draft of mine is completed. In contrast, it was much easier for me to comment on, or suggest additions to, my co-authors’ drafts earlier in the process. Thinking about it now, I’m grateful to my co-authors for putting up with me both as a late writer and early editor.
____________
CW: Elizabeth Gilbert, the author of Eat Pray Love, has spoken about the concept of a “muse” in her writing process. She believes that inspiration comes from external sources, and that it is the writer’s job to be receptive to it. In my own writing practices, I have found this concept helpful, even though I’m not in the business of writing best-selling novels. The muse is not a literal entity, but a conceptual tool that helps me tap into my creativity and find the right words. I am not writing because I have something to say, but rather because the muse wants to speak through me as a vessel. This takes some pressure off, and sends me looking outside myself for sources of inspiration. Writing in a collaborative setting can be challenging, as each person has their own style, expertise, and way of reflecting. I like to think that the muse concept enabled me to be more open to receiving inspiration and ideas from my coauthors, resulting in a better final product.
As for writing style, mine is a process that is often non-linear and unpredictable. I might begin with a general idea of where I want to end up, but more often than not, I don’t have a clear roadmap in mind. I can spend an hour on a single sentence, reworking it over and over again until it feels just right. Then the dam will break and I’ll find myself going back and changing lots of other things based on that one sentence. I discover things along the way that help me shape the direction of my work. Often, it’s not until I have the final lines figured out that the complete piece finally takes shape. In the best case, this fluid and iterative process allows me to create something that achieves a certain unity of effect, but it sure is frustrating and messy-feeling at times.
Since the book was a collaboration, we each wrote different parts of the book separately. Then, periodically, we would meet to discuss each other’s work, share ideas and feedback, suggest changes and improvements, and so on. This approach had its benefits and challenges. Being able to work independently and focus on a specific area of the book, without distractions or interruptions, was a boon for deeper thought and for critical editing. Additionally, this approach allowed for greater specialization and expertise to manifest in different areas of the book.
On the other hand, this approach sometimes led to inconsistencies in writing style and tone, especially during the early stages, and the book would feel disjointed if we left these unaddressed. I think it’s fair to say that we all found it difficult, at times, to integrate ideas and ensure that the different parts of the book were cohesive. And the iterative method is challenging when everyone is working separately, because it requires diligent communication about any changes or updates. But perhaps the largest challenge was finding a balance between our individual writing styles and our desire to create a cohesive final product. We had to compromise and make changes to our writing in deference to each other’s preferences and judgments, which could be a difficult process at times. (Philosophers have strong wills, you know!)
Despite the challenges, I believe that the collaborative approach ultimately led to a more well-rounded and compelling final product, one that drew on the strengths of each author and resulted in a book that was greater than the sum of its parts.
______________
IP: Writing a book collectively was an extraordinary experience. First of all, because it is very uncommon for me to engage in collective work. I have, in the past, co-edited a book and co-authored articles, but it was joint work where everybody contributes something and the contributions are put together. But in this case, it was really collective work where everybody contributes to the work as a whole. There are some parts that were authored more by one of us than the others in the sense that one of us was more in charge of what would go in this part whereas other parts were more the result of layers of writing and editing. But everything that went in the book was discussed before the writing and then read and commented upon by the others and discussed again and edited and reviewed again and sometimes, for some parts, that happened many times before we were all satisfied with the result.
It was also extraordinary in that you are involved in doing something that you could not have done alone, something much larger than you had the capacity to do by yourself and, still, you did it. So, it feels like a rare opportunity to really go beyond yourself because by yourself alone you could not have gone there.
And it was also extraordinary in the sense that working collectively in this way is not something that comes to me naturally, or at least that’s what I would have thought. Writing collectively has its specific challenges beside the challenges that writing a book can have like arriving at a stable idea of what it should be as a whole and clarifying, organizing and expressing your thoughts. One challenge could be the interaction with the other co-authors. But in this case that has never felt like a challenge, it felt like it was going very smoothly. Rather the challenge for me was more at a personal level; it was to let someone else into your mind and to trust that whatever they were doing with your ideas was very probably for a better result. To stay engaged in this collective effort for several years, without at any moment calling it into question, to keep working at it until we were all satisfied, despite the time and effort it took from other parts of my life, and the weight it sometimes felt to be carrying this commitment, might well be what I am the most proud of. And I am incredibly grateful to Yann and Chris that they did just the same, kept working at it, writing, reviewing, editing, correcting, re-writing, re-reviewing, despite the time and effort and the weight they probably felt just as I did.
Isabelle Peschard
Isabelle Peschard is Associate Professor Emerita and Lecturer Faculty in the Philosophy department at San Francisco State University. She obtained a doctorate in physics, specializing in instabilities and transitions to chaotic behavior in fluid mechanics, and a doctorate in philosophy specializing in theories of embodied cognition. Her work in philosophy focuses especially on issues in philosophy of science related to the construction of theoretical models hand-in-hand with experimental activity and the role of values in this process.
Yann Benétreau-Dupin
Yann Benétreau-Dupin is a journal editor in open-access scientific publishing, now a Senior Editor at Nature Communications, which he joined after his role as a Division Editor for the behavioral and social sciences at PLOS ONE (Public Library of Science). Before that, he obtained a doctorate in philosophy at Western University in Canada, a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh Center for Philosophy of Science, and a Visiting Assistant Professorship at San Francisco State University. His doctoral research was on confirmation theory and inductive reasoning, and particularly on probabilistic reasoning in physical cosmology. He has also written on the role of the history and philosophy of science in science education, inclusiveness in academia, and medieval logic.
His child, Alice, is careful when crossing the street as she knows it’s risky.
Christopher Wessels
Christopher Wessels is a Lecturer of Philosophy at San Francisco State University, with degrees in Integrative Biology and Mechanical Engineering (UC Berkeley), and Philosophy (SF State). His research interests include the philosophy of risk, moral psychology, education and interdisciplinary collaboration among philosophy, empirical science, and artificial intelligence. Christopher is passionate about applying philosophical concepts to real-world problems and is dedicated to making such concepts accessible to students. He is particularly interested in developing active learning methods for teaching and exploring alternative approaches to assessment.
Maryellen Stohlman-Vanderveen is the APA Blog's Diversity and Inclusion Editor and Research Editor. She graduated from the London School of Economics with an MSc in Philosophy and Public Policy in 2023 and currently works in strategic communications. Her philosophical interests include conceptual engineering, normative ethics, philosophy of technology, and how to live a good life.
